2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On September 28, 2003, C, the father of the Plaintiff, was leased to the Defendant with a deposit money of KRW 10 million, KRW 800,000,000,000,000 for rent, and from October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004, the contract did not specify the specific size of the leased object.

B. On January 9, 2012, E, the Plaintiff’s wife, completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant factory based on sale:

2. 1. The Defendant drafted a contract with the content that the instant factory was leased to the Defendant by setting the deposit amount of KRW 10 million, KRW 800,000 per month, and the period from February 1, 2012 to January 31, 2013. Likewise, the written contract does not indicate the specific area of the leased object.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). C.

On March 10, 2015, the Plaintiff succeeded to the lessor’s status of the instant contract by accepting the donation of the instant factory from E and completing the registration of ownership transfer.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. Of the instant factories asserted by the Plaintiff, 1/2 put up the Plaintiff’s motion for removal of machinery around September 201 when the Plaintiff occupied and used food manufacturing machinery, and the Defendant began to use the entire factory of this case as the storage place for the entire motor vehicle parts.

E demanded to conclude a new contract on the part of 1/2 arbitrarily used when concluding the instant contract. However, the Defendant was temporarily occupied by the Defendant, and thus, concluded a contract under the same conditions as before, and thereafter, the Defendant did not possess the portion of 1/2.

Since E has leased only 1/20 of the factory of this case, the defendant makes unjust enrichment as to the remainder 1/2 without permission.